Local Authority enables false allegations by a mother who at the same time covers up abuse by sex offender step parent allowing him contact with a child he abused.

In 2010 Kristine Ross (formerly Kristine Monfero Orencia) moved to the UK with child A from the Philippines.

In 2012 she made allegations against her husband and was enabled to do so by Highland council and Ross-shire women’s aid. Her baseless allegations of domestic abuse allowed her to stay in the United Kingdom.

The father has never been convicted of domestic abuse.

Child B was born in May 2012 whilst the mother was staying at the womans’ refuge.

According the children’s father, Highland council then made court reports about the father’s state of mental health without consulting a doctor when the father took Kristine Ross to court to get custody of the children. The fact that the father was able to produce a letter by his doctor in court contending that they had never been approached made no bearing on social services recommendations.

In early 2013 Kristine Ross allowed the father into her house in Munlochy to see the children but at the same time wanted a sexual relationship with the father. It became apparent to the father that Kristine Ross only wanted the relationship so as to ask for the non removal order, preventing the children being removed from the UK to be lifted allowing the children to be removed.

When the father would not grant this, she then, once again became very hostile making child handovers impossible resulting in the father not being able to have contact with the children for fear of hostility from the mother being displayed in front of them.

In August 2013 she took up with a new partner, Andrew McHattie. When it was divulged to Ms Ross that Mr McHattie has got a history of raping a 12 year old girl when he was 17, he threatened 2 staff.

In the meantime, nothing was reported in court reports regarding the background of the stepfather severely affecting justice for the two children, child A and child B.

In 2014, child C was born which is the offspring of Mr McHattie.

In 2015 Ms Ross was taken to court for contempt of court and refusing to send the children to contact; at that point the local authority stepped in and went in to child proceedings finding lack of parental care against the mother, history of domestic abuse against Mr McHattie and also that he has a previous conviction for sexual misconduct with a child (statutory rape).

Knowing this, the social work department allowed the Mr McHattie to move in to the house in Munlochy near Inverness, with the children.

The father has always contended that the mother has been repeating her false allegations of abuse to the children and certain remarks made by the children have been heard by numerous witnesses.

In late May of 2016, child A turned up at school on a Monday with severe bruising to his face. The mother and stepfather were questioned by police and the mothers account of what happened to child A was not consistent with the non accidental injury inflicted on child A.

The child had been assaulted on the Friday (by admission 2 years later from Mr McHattie who pled guilty to this) and left by the mother who would have seen the bruising and not taken to any medical attention or matters reported to the police by her.

The following day after being interviewed by police about what had happened to child A, an incident happened at his mother’s hotel which was held up by Mr McHattie, threatening to set it on fire. There was an 8 hour stand off and siege by police of the hotel in Muir of Ord which made national headlines.

It is believed by the father that the staff of the local authority are scared of Mr McHattie as he has already threatened them and the above incident clearly shows what he is capable of.

Its is also obvious that Mr McHattie knew that he was already under investigation for child abuse and that these matters are connected with his attempting to hide in the loft and lunging at police officers with a hammer.

It is of interest that the mother firstly would not answer the door to the person taking the children to see their father and also that the children have progressed into refusing to see their father since the time of the assault on child A. He believes that was to stop the children from speaking to the father about abuse.

He also believes that the local authority had done so much to help the mother’s initial baseless DV application to the UK and falsifying court reports that they cannot turn back on what they had done.

In the meantime, between the child being assaulted and the conviction of Mr McHattie, he and Ms Ross had convinced the local authority that this was due to mental health issues. In fact, Mr McHattie had been found fit to plead for the incident in at the hotel and the assault of child A.

It seems to be very double standards that the local authority could help to present to child proceedings (held before the conviction of assault on McHattie) and even after conviction present his mental health issues as a get out of jail card. On the other hand they fabricated mental health issues against the natural father as a means to prevent his obtaining justice for the children and protecting them.

The fact that the local authority condones this sort of behaviour whilst making no further investigation into why the children do not wish to see their father leads the father into believing that the local authority are orchestrating a cover up going as high as area management and the head of social services; they fervently deny any wrongdoing.

Ms Ross and Mr McHattie already have a history of refusing to let the social workers see the children in 2015.

The case is being dealt with by the Dingwall office.

The mother is still continuing a relationship with Mr McHattie and the local authority are recommending as of now that the children then have unsupervised contact between Mr McHattie and the children.

Despite numerous complaints being made by the father of the children, it is the position of the local authority that the children wish to see Mr McHattie and not their natural father.

It is the position of the father that the mother has an undue amount of influence over the children who have been deliberately alienated from him with the help of the local authority who wish to keep these matters away from public attention.